This isnt about voting right or "wrong", this is about continually voting for people who implement policies that are detrimental to the future of
the nation. I do not believe Romney wouldve been much better but at least he understands the concept of debt vs income and knows what takes to run a
business, albeit a gigantic business named the United States.

This isnt about voting right or "wrong", this is about continually voting for people who implement policies that are detrimental to the future of
the nation. I do not believe Romney wouldve been much better but at least he understands the concept of debt vs income and knows what takes to run a
business, albeit a gigantic business named the United States.

Romney understood income and expenses? So thats why he promised tax rate cuts and higher military spending?
Face it: as spinalremains said: Romney lost because not enough people were voting for free stuff.

When one segment of society, in this case the wealthy, pay the overwhelming share of the taxes (something like top 10% of earners pay 50% of the
taxes), they should be the first recipients of any tax cuts.

Giving more money to a government that has continually proven they cannot spend responsibly or intelligently, let alone in adherence of the
Constitutional limitations, is not the right course of action.

Massive cuts and eliminations of unconstitutional programs needs to be the first thing done, long before even thinking about demanding more money from
people.

When one segment of society, in this case the wealthy, pay the overwhelming share of the taxes (something like top 10% of earners pay 50% of the
taxes), they should be the first recipients of any tax cuts.

Giving more money to a government that has continually proven they cannot spend responsibly or intelligently, let alone in adherence of the
Constitutional limitations, is not the right course of action.

Massive cuts and eliminations of unconstitutional programs needs to be the first thing done, long before even thinking about demanding more money from
people.

Ok, I'll try to make this simple: Lower taxes -> Less money coming in
Higher military spending -> More money going out
This means the hole in the budget gets bigger.
More stuff, being paid for with less income -> more free stuff.

(Of course then you can use the deficit as an excuse to gut social programs, who are unfairly cutting into the potential markets of insurance
companies, who, being private, could run those much better and more efficiently, yet somehow are unable to seriously compete.)

The democrats in the Senate havent passed a budget in what, 3 years? That speaks volumes about the irresponsibility of those people to work with
constraint and limitations. I am not a fan of increasing spending on anything, including the military, but wasting billions upon billions of dollars
every year providing a "safety net" for people is not constitutional, and the very idea of wealth redistribution (to individuals and corporations
alike) is a smack in the face to the very idea of freedom and liberty.

The jackasses in DC like to proclaim that they have cut programs when they choose to increase it to only 6% instead of 8%. That is not a cut.

What we need is less government, less spending, and more money in the hands of the people who earn it.

Yes, I know, its dailykos.... but www.dailykos.com...
Looks like reps don't think too much of that leak either (Though I can understand that he would say stuff like that talking to dissapointed
donors)

So Americans voted for you, Romney, but women and blacks and hispanics voted for Obama?

Just come out and say it, Mitt. You believe that only white land owning men are Americans.
Imagine all the profit increases if we put Africans in chains again and made them work for nothing. That'll show the unions!

Now we all officially know and understand exactly what "Taking America Back" means. Back to 1838, I get it.

Originally posted by spinalremain
So Americans voted for you, Romney, but women and blacks and hispanics voted for Obama?

Just come out and say it, Mitt. You believe that only white land owning men are Americans.
Imagine all the profit increases if we put Africans in chains again and made them work for nothing. That'll show the unions!

Now we all officially know and understand exactly what "Taking America Back" means. Back to 1838, I get it.

Uh! Uh! I got a great Idea! How about wie imprison people for smoking gras, and then use them as cheap labor? Will look better than actually enslaving
people. What? We already do that? .... never mind...

While you may not like the message, you cant argue with the truth contained in this Tshirt:

edit on 15-11-2012 by TheAngryFarm because: (no reason
given)

I prefer this one....

And I am a Libertarian. I left the Republicans years ago because they were beginning to lose their damn mind....and apparently they have completed
that journey.

If you really believe in all the types of suppression and subjugation you are speaking about...you have some company...Al Queada, the Taliban....or to
make you feel better...the Puritans...from about 300 years ago.

Shiz happens....things change...me? I just want to be free...me and my children...who happen to be young women of now voting age...just try to take
their voting rights away...I dare you.

Part of the reason was because the rest of the world was busy rebuilding their sewers, roads and bridges after WW2. We were one of the only counties
in the first world whose manufacturing base wasn't spread all over the ground in tiny little pieces. But lets not let "history" stand in the way of
a good rant.

I did notice that you couldn't explain how people who are compelled to vote by law, and who operate under a "socialist" safety-net (OMG -- Market
socialism!) are somehow more FREE and attractive to business people than we are. Do you believe American entrepreneurs are frustrated by their
inability to create better roadside bombs? Is that why the patriot act is so scary to them?

Or could it be that a consumer and worker base of free people aren't worried that cancer will eat up their life savings and cost them their home are
somehow better employees and partners in creating actual wealth and progress?

Bullocks, Rubbish and Nonsense!!! I can't even begin to address any of the crap your spewing because it is based on non-sequiturs and red herrings.
Your post has ZERO substance to even respond to!

Time for you to get a better grasp of "history"... a few books on Micro and Macro economics would also prove to be useful. While you're at it -
why not read the Federalist Papers as well. It may give youa sense of what this country was REALLY founded upon.

The Above Top Secret Web site is a wholly owned social content community of The Above Network, LLC.

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.